Jack Straw: The business for next week is as follows:
	Monday 6 November—Consideration of Lords messages to the NHS Redress Bill [Lords], proceedings on the National Health Service Bill [Lords], followed by proceedings on the National Health Service (Consequential Provisions) Bill [Lords], followed by proceedings on the National Health Service (Wales) Bill [Lords], followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Animal Welfare Bill, followed by consideration of Lords message to the Police and Justice Bill, followed by consideration of Lords message to the road Safety Bill [Lords], consideration of Lords message to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [Lords], followed by, if necessary, consideration of other Lords messages.
	Tuesday 7 November—If necessary, consideration of Lords messages followed by a motion to approve a ways and means resolution on the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Armed Forces Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords messages.
	Wednesday 8 November—If necessary, consideration of Lords messages
	The House will be prorogued when Royal Assent to all Acts has been signified.
	I am pleased to be able to announce the Commons calendar until October 2007. We plan to rise for the Easter recess on Thursday 29 March and return on Monday 16 April. For the Whitsun recess, the House will rise on Thursday 24 May and return on Monday4 June. For the summer recess, the House will rise on Thursday 26 July and return on Monday 8 October. That is, of course, subject to the progress of business.

Theresa May: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business for next week and the calendar for next year. That was very helpful.
	The Stern report, published last week, was the subject of a statement in the House. Members normally have access to such reports immediately, but I understand that the Vote Office will only print copies on request. The report may be an environmental measure, but will the Leader of the House of the House tell us whether that rule will apply in future to reports that are the subject of statements in the House?
	It has been reported that the 2012 Olympics are already way over budget, and that the Government are considering a windfall land tax in east London to cover the increase. Will the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport come to the House to make an urgent statement on the Olympics, on their current projected costs and on who will pay for the overrun?
	The Local Government Association has calculated that council social services this year will have a funding shortfall of £1.8 billion. The situation is made worse by the fact that with many NHS trusts in deficit, social care is now often having to replace care in hospital. Councils are having to revise their eligibility criteria, which means, for example, that some vulnerable people are going to have to pay more for services such as home care. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government did not address the issue in her statement last week. Will she now come to the House to make an urgent statement on the impact of Government policy on the provision of social services?
	The Leader of the House will be aware that there has been widespread concern and anger that Abu Hamza was able to sell and buy property while on remand and in jail, and while his assets supposedly had been frozen by the Treasury. He had apparently transferred his assets to his son. Last week at Treasury questions, the Economic Secretary—following questions from my hon. Friends the Members for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers) and for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands)—said:
	"The transfer of property, which was discussed between ourselves and the police, was not an illegal act."—[ Official Report, 26 October 2006; Vol. 450, c. 1651.]
	In other words, when suspected terrorists' assets are frozen, they can get round the rule by transferring assets to a member of their family. Does not this expose a very big loophole in the Government's legislation? How was Abu Hamza able to transfer assets to his son when they had been frozen by the Treasury? Will the Economic Secretary now come to this House to explain the position and tell the House what the Government have done to close this loophole?
	Yeldall Manor is a very effective drug rehabilitation centre in my constituency. It is facing problems because it is receiving fewer referrals from local authorities and others, something that is a problem across the country. Indeed, as the noble Lord Taverne, chairman of Alcohol and Drug Prevention and Treatment Ltd, said in a recent letter to  The Times:
	"Several units providing residential treatment now have occupancy rates below 40 per cent and many may have to close before Christmas."
	Lord Taverne also said that the problem was that local drug action teams have been set targets, but find in practice that they can meet them most easily and cheaply by maintaining addicts on methadone or by sending them to short treatment courses that include day treatment centres, which are often unregulated. Yet recent research in Scotland has shown that giving methadone to heroin addicts has a 97 per cent. failure rate. Research has also shown that the overall reconviction rate for those on drug treatment and testing orders was 80 per cent. Will the Home Secretary come to the House to make an urgent statement on the failings in the Government's drug treatment programme?
	Finally, the Leader of the House has always been clear that he expects Government Ministers to reply in a timely and helpful fashion to questions from hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) recently asked the Deputy Prime Minister a written question about his trip to the far east, including who had gone with him at public expense, how they had travelled and how much the trip had cost. The answer he received, effectively, was that the cost would be published next July and that it was all in accordance with the ministerial code. In other words, the answer told us precisely nothing. When will the Government come clean on how much the Deputy Prime Minister is costing the taxpayer for doing nothing?

David Taylor: Last Friday, the Football Association council ratified the Burns report on the future of football, which was very welcome. The report, together with the independent European sports review, could shape the future of the game that means so much to people in this country. However, neither contains measures that would prevent unscrupulous businessmen from buying football clubs for their own purposes and, often, jeopardising the club's future. May we have a full debate, in Government time, on what is the most important sport in this country, and—not least—the lack of any teeth in the "fit and proper person" measure, which allows unscrupulous figures to acquire football clubs to the detriment of the communities in which those clubs operate?

Jack Straw: Like my hon. Friend, I applaud the FA's decision to implement the Burns report and I entirely understand the point that he makes about unscrupulous businessmen who still operate in football. As for a debate, we will add it to the long list of potential subjects, but he may be able to raise the matter on the Adjournment in this House or in Westminster Hall.

Jeremy Corbyn: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will have noted that we had a short but interesting debate on Iraq on Monday because the nationalist parties succeeded in using one of their Opposition Supply days for that occasion. Can he assure us that in the next Session we will have regulate debates, in Government time, on foreign policy and specifically on the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan? It simply is not good enough just to point to the debate on foreign affairs that is part of debate on the Queen's Speech. We need debate in Government time on what is a serious matter that affects the lives of millions of people around the world and is a huge concern to all our constituents.

Jim Knight: Clause 37 was tabled by the Government at Lords Report stage of the Bill in response to amendments withdrawn during Lords Committee by the right reverend prelates, the Lord Bishops of Peterborough and of Southwell and Nottingham. Let me be absolutely clear that we are not increasing the ability of faith schools to discriminate in the employment of their staff.
	Clause 37 addresses the increased restrictions that have been an unintended consequence of work force reform. Subsection (1) allows the head teacher of a religious foundation or voluntary controlled school in England and Wales to be a reserved teacher—that is, appointed specifically to teach religious education in accordance with the tenets of the school's specified religion.
	Religious foundation and voluntary controlled schools should have the same flexibility as that currently enjoyed by voluntary aided schools, namely, the ability to appoint a head teacher specifically to teach religious education at the school, as well as to carry out their duties as a head teacher. Such flexibility is particularly important in small primary schools, where the existing restriction is unnecessarily burdensome. Should a voluntary controlled school chose to appoint the head teacher as a reserved teacher, that appointment will count towards the one fifth of the teaching staff that are permitted to be appointed as reserved teachers, and hence there is absolutely no increase in discrimination.

Ken Purchase: The debate will obviously go on and on. From the outset of my brief contribution, I wantto make it clear that I have worked closely withfaith schools in my constituency and in wider Wolverhampton for more than 30 years. My relationships with them have been overwhelmingly good and the teachers, head teachers and workers have had one thought in their minds—giving the children the best possible education.
	The essence of the Government's proposal will not bring people together but divide them even more. In 1998, I was not happy to support the idea that schools could appoint 20 per cent. of their staff on the ground of religion. I support the idea of religious education, which should be wide, liberal and tolerant. I understand that faith schools wish to present a specific point of view—a spin, in modern parlance, on their faith. I do not especially have a problem with that. However, we have now reached the stage where the20 per cent. is no longer the point. We are now asking, "Can we include a head teacher?" and "Can we appoint non-teaching staff to carry out pastoral duties?"
	I regard pastoral care as central to children's education. Many children bring to school a whole package of difficulties, trauma and deprivation. I expect trained teachers—and trained social workers—to provide genuine help, guidance and support for children in that position. Teachers, through their training, understand the importance and centrality of pastoral care to their role and that they carry it out diligently and properly. There are always those who are poor at what they do, but that applies throughout society.
	If we agree to this measure today—and I hope that we will not—it will lead to a downgrading of pastoral care at the heart of many of our urban schools, where pupils have serious difficulties. I welcome the idea that funding for schools is now so abundant that there is room in work force changes to have specific posts. May I have one in every school in my constituency? However, the appointment does not need to be made on the basis of the person's religion. We need someone who is properly qualified and understanding—even at graduate level. It is so important that we get this part of our education system absolutely correct.
	As far as the point of view of trade unions is concerned, the consultation will go on. Ultimately,the trade unions will acquiesce in whatever the Government want, because that is the way things have to be. But the fact of the matter is that this is far wider than a narrow trade union interest. This is the biggest issue in the Bill—outside of the provision to have trust schools, and so on and so forth—and therefore, with sadness, I will vote against the Government on this matter. They have had what we call in the industrial west midlands a bit of a bum's rush. The policy is ill thought out and the Government do not know the consequences. No one has been through all the possibilities.
	Most of all, the idea that I have to be a Catholic, a Jew, a Muslim or someone of some faith to help and guide a young person is appalling. Those with religion in their hearts should look in their hearts to understand just what they are doing in this case and what they are demanding. I am talking about stripping away from us our essential humanity—our ability to care for one another regardless of our creed, colour, sexual orientation or anything else that may divide us. What we are looking at here is how we can help a fellow human being—often of tender years. The number of times that someone will be called on to say, "I am not sure about my faith. Can you help me?" is infinitesimal compared with the baggage and problems that children bring to our schools every day and that need to be addressed with proper professional help, support and guidance. I urge the Government to rethink this matter, because I do not honestly believe that they have had time to work through all the consequences.

Evan Harris: Yes, that is correct. Otherwise, on what basis would one oppose discrimination? Obviously, the Catholic may faith argue that every single teacher and member of staff in its schools must be Catholic in order to uphold the ethos. I would argue that an ethos is an ethos and is not dependent on the religious views of individuals in that state school. The job of the school is to teach. There is already difficulty, as we have heard, in finding enough people of the correct faith to appoint to specific schools, particularly head teachers. My hon. Friend will have to defend a situation which is the logical consequence of what he says, in which every teacher must undergo a faith test if the ethos is to be fully upheld.

Jim Knight: We are very clear about the fact that contractual agreements relating to PFI would transfer with different arrangements in respect of schools. We have to be very cautious about that scenario. We issued guidance on the renegotiation of PFI in certain circumstances relatively recently— I think that it was to do with school food—but, as far as I am aware, PFI obligations would transfer to a community school. If I receive further advice, I will update the hon. Lady.
	The updating has proceeded smoothly, and I can now clarify the position. PFI contracts are always with the local authority, so if a contract reverts to a community school, it will remain with the authority.
	I believe that in amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 24 the hon. Member for Brent, East might be trying to revisit the question of whether foundations should be able, when the governing body wishes it, to appoint a majority of the governors. That question is fundamental to the whole policy of trust schools as set out in the schools White Paper, and we believe that it has been debated pretty thoroughly during the Bill's passage through both Houses.
	The amendments would simply create bureaucratic burdens for voluntary controlled schools wishing to become foundation schools, when their existing arrangements with their foundations currently work perfectly well. Amendment (a) would extend the application of clause 32, which sets out what is required of new trusts—for example, that they are incorporated charities of a particular description. It would apply those requirements to voluntary controlled schools—schools with foundations with which they are working well—that changed category to foundation, even when they did not wish the foundation to appoint a majority of the governors. We do not think that it is necessary or desirable to disrupt arrangements that are working, and I hope that the hon. Lady will not press her amendment.

Nick Gibb: We are dealing with a range of amendments relating to school organisations. Lords amendments Nos. 6 to 10 and 12 relate to local authorities' power to propose alterations to schools. In particular, they allow authorities to increase the number of pupils admitted. They also clarify authorities' powers with respect to foundation special schools. Conservative Members welcome these proposals. It would be odd if a local authority could order a school to enlarge its premises but could not order it to admit additional pupils.
	I am slightly concerned about the separation of foundation special schools from other foundation schools. It seems that the amendments would allow a local authority to change the type of special educational needs for which a school has been organised. I do not imagine that a charity specialising in one form of special education would sponsor a trust school if there were a risk that the local authority would change the type of SEN that it offered. However, this is an improvement on the Bill's original wording, which implied that a local authority could end SEN provision altogether at a special school. I hope that the Government will make clear, in guidance and regulations, the circumstances in which changing the type of SEN provision in a school would be acceptable.
	Lords amendment No. 13 restricts the right of governing bodies to publish foundation proposals in the case of voluntary schools or existing foundation schools. That ensures that schools ask permission from their faith groups, foundations or dioceses before they propose to become foundation schools, or change the instrument of government to allow a majority of governors to be foundation governors. The amendment therefore strengths the oversight of faith groups and existing foundations over the control of the schools that they serve. It means that no existing voluntary school could become a trust school without seeking proper permission. Given the historic role that the Churches have played in the development of such schools, that seems a reasonable proposition. Lords amendment No. 90 supplements it by specifically amending the Diocesan Boards of Education Measure.
	Lords amendments Nos. 17 to 23 concern the removal of foundations under clause 24. Lords amendment No. 20 ensures that the governing body makes arrangements for the transfers of assets and lands when a foundation is removed before publishing proposals to remove the foundation. Clearly if a trust provided a school with resources, it would be extremely unwise for the school to attempt to remove the trust if it would lead to the return of all those assets to the original owners. The amendment will make schools think carefully before removing the foundation by ensuring that they are fully aware of the financial consequences. Again, we support the amendment.
	Clause 32 imposes certain requirements on the foundations of trust schools. In particular, it ensures that the foundations are charitable and it allows for charity trustees to be disqualified in accordance with the regulations that we saw in Committee, such as when trustees have criminal convictions, or when teachers are on list 99. Lords amendment No. 24 clarifies which type of school this clause applies to. The clause applies to any foundation school or foundation special school with a foundation, subject to three conditions, A, B and C.
	Amendment (a) in the name of the hon. Member for Brent, East amends condition B. Condition B states that the section applies to a foundation school with a foundation where it acquired the foundation under this Bill, or where it is an existing foundation school with a foundation whose instrument of government is altered under this Bill to provide for the majority of governors to be foundation governors. Is that clear so far?
	The amendment would replace the words "the majority" with "a component". I believe that the amendment is probably technically flawed. It is clear from subsection (1) of the Government amendment that clause 32 applies only to foundation schools having a foundation. Such schools will already have "a component" of foundation governors on the governing body. There is no question, therefore, of an alteration of the instrument of government leading an existing foundation school with a foundation to "become" such a school. If anything, this amendment removes existing foundation schools with a foundation from the requirements of clause 32 where they decide that a majority of the governing body should be foundation governors. So there we are.
	Lords amendments Nos. 25 to 28 relate to parents councils. Amendment No. 27 in particular allows parents to invite people other than parents of current pupils on to the parent council. It also provides that parent members must consent to the appointment of a non-parent member, and that parents must still form a majority on the council. This is a welcome amendment, because it recognises the role that schools can play within communities and communities can play within schools. In faith schools, in particular, it would be extremely beneficial if representatives of the faith within the community could play a meaningful role on the parents council, particularly where, for religious reasons, such people may not have children of their own.
	Amendments Nos. 48 to 51 propose that the Secretary of State consult the local education authority and the governing body of the school before deciding to appoint additional governors. Again, this is welcome. Originally, the Secretary of State would have to have consulted only in the case of voluntary aided schools, and in this case only the Diocese or the person who appointed the foundation governors. Now the Bill will make it clear that the Secretary of State should consult in all cases, and should also consult the local authority and governing body of the school.
	According to the Minister in the other place, this already reflects best practice on the part of the Government. I welcome this amendment, which will mean that the foundation of a trust school is given the same rights as the foundation of a voluntary aided school.

Sarah Teather: I wish to speak to our amendment to Lords amendment No. 24, which takes us neatly off the subject of God, which has occupied us all afternoon. I hope that we will be able to be a lot quicker now.
	The Government, and the whole House, will be aware that throughout the passage of the Bill we have opposed measures that allow a foundation to appoint a majority of school governors and, therefore, to reduce the component of directly elected parent governors. We see this as a question of accountability and principle. The Government's position seems to fly in the face of much of their rhetoric about parent power. We entirely accept the analysis of the school swot from the Conservative Front Bench, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), that our amendment is not perfect and does not achieve all the things that we seek. But we are bound by the rules of this stage of the legislative process, which mean that we can amend only the amendments that are in play. We have sought to do that because it is an issue of considerable principle to us and because we want the Government to respond to our concerns.
	The Government's answer to our protests about the decrease in the number of elected parent-governors is usually twofold. First, they argue that foundationscan appoint parent-governors. But it should be transparently obvious, especially in a place such as this House, that appointment is not a good enough solution, in contrast to a directly elected democratic mandate, which is always preferable and much more powerful.
	The Government's second answer is usually that the school will be required to set up a parent council. but, of course, such councils are advisory, not decision making. However, perhaps the greatest irony is that, within the group of amendments, the Government are allowing parent councils to appoint people other than parents.
	I accept the point of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) about the need to involve the community and people of other faiths in the governance of a school, but I am unsure whether a parent council is the place to do that. That is surely a matter for the governing body or other users or advisory panels. The parent council has that name because it is supposed to involve parents at the school.
	I understand that the Government recognise the difficulties that many schools find in appointing the right number of parents to a parent council, but they cannot then argue that the measures in the Bill meet our other concerns.

Jim Knight: The Johnson I answer to is also a great fan of music and might support that quote.
	There are sound educational grounds for the change proposed in the Lords amendment. Restrictions on group sizes for instrumental tuition work against best practice. The intention is to remove barriers to promoting the best contemporary group teaching practices and conditions for learning.
	I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) for proposing her amendment. I understand and agree with her concern that children from disadvantaged families should not be adversely affected by the change. However, we consider her amendment unnecessary, because section 457 (1) of the Education Act 1996 requires that remissions policies have to be in place for any "optional extra" for which a charge is permitted. Setting out in regulations the circumstances in which vocal and instrumental tuition can be charged for will mean, by virtue of section 455 of the Act, that such tuition is an "optional extra", over and above the music tuition already provided as part of the national curriculum. In guidance to support the new regulations, we will reiterate the requirement to have in place remissions policies, including complete remission for pupils whose parents are in receipt of a range of benefits, such as income support and tax credits.
	I hope that on that basis that the hon. Lady will not press her amendment.

Jim Knight: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) for her comments in particular. I recall that great youth work is carried out at the leisure centre in Wareham in her constituency, so sometimes the two can go together, and I certainly agree that youth work has never been more important.
	The hon. Lady is right to say that we have not had a chance to debate this properly. In trying to keep my comments brief, I omitted to state that youth work aims to help young people to identify and developtheir capacities and accept their responsibilities as individuals and citizens. It offers them the ability to acquire important social skills, extends their horizon and engages them actively in their own development. On that note, I commend the amendment to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.